Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] openssl license

[Yavor Doganov]

Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> One thing you didn't mention is using GnuTLS.

Deliberately -- it's well known, and hated among major developers
(why?) [1].  Migration to GnuTLS is not always trivial, and the
openssl compatibility layer (in gnutls-extra, I think) does not work
in all cases and is under GPL (IIRC).

> That's what we recommend 

Migration of an existing package to a new API?  I'm a big fan of
GnuTLS, but imposing a specific library as a precondition for project
approval (even as a recommendation) sounds a bit harsh to me,
especially given the fact that several GNU packages have not migrated
for years.  It is simply hypocritcial to declare it as some kind of a
policy.

[1] OpenLDAP, Mutt, Exim, etc. do not even accept bug reports if the
package was built against gnutls.  That's considered by them as
"untested, immature implementation" and "unreliable library" that is
not supported or guaranteed to work.  Some other projects
(f.i. Pidgin) even migrated from GnuTLS to NSS (!) and have a firm
anti-gnutls policy [sic].